It's been almost a year since I wrote my first Blogs that Appall Me post. As I said then, I had mixed feelings about the whole thing. I was hesitant to provide links and publicity to a blog I found appalling, and pointing out the negative is generally only useful if it leads to some kind of productive action--this didn't seem like it would. So, after that initial post, I let the idea languish. But I've once again run across a blog that so horrifies me that I just can't keep my mouth shut.
Today's nominee is called "WTF Are We Going to Do Now?" It's about having a baby, and it's NOT tongue-in-cheek.
Before I go on, let me remind you that the Internet is forever. Our kids are stuck with what we've written, whether that means someone Googling their names and turning up information they'd rather have kept private or it means making ugly discoveries themselves. We've all seen movies in which some adolescent child hears a story or stumbles across an old letter or journal entry and discovers that the circumstances of his birth weren't what he thought. But tomorrow's kids won't even have to work that hard.
Brad's child, for instance, will only have to visit the "about Brad" page (or the version of it that's archived on the Wayback Machine or some other archiving site) to learn that his father was "not excited about this baby" but had decided to "do his best" to love it since that's "a father's job". Just what every kid wants to hear, don't you think?
I want to give him the benefit of the doubt on referring to his upcoming child as "the new pet". I'm hoping that's just a matter of concealing the news from their older child until he's ready to share.
Brad's wife, Katy, is a little softer. She only refers to this new child as her biggest "life interruption". And she gives her husband props for "giving up most of what he wanted to do with his life" in order to support her and their existing child. My first reaction to that was just a wave of pity for her and that child, to feel that they were an onerous obligation that kept this man from the life he wanted instead of...you know...BEING the life he wanted. But then I thought a little further, and I couldn't even make sense out of it.
You see, in another post, Brad shares that he's been a stay-at-home dad for almost ten years. Apparently at the moment both parents are at home, but he's hoping the wife will go back to work soon. Based on his ten years of experience, he offers all kinds of sage advice about how it's our responsibility as parents to suck it up and pretend that we're enjoying time with our kids when we'd rather be playing xbox.
I have to admit that I feel a little sorry for Brad and Katy. When my daughter came tumbling into my life (also unexpected, and at a very bad time for both medical and financial reasons) it was like a little piece of the sun had unexpectedly landed in my house and just stayed around lighting the place up and spreading warmth. It's painful to think that there are parents who are so focused on what they're giving up that they can't take that kind of joy from their children. But it's all the more troubling that they choose to share it with the world and, ultimately, probably with their children.
For once in my life, I'm glad to see a deluge of full-page pop-up ads. Maybe people will give up before they get to the actual text, and the bots won't be able to wade through the crap and archive these atrocities.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Sunday, September 14, 2008
The Biggest Set-Up in American Political History?
There’s been a lot of back and forth about whether McCain’s outrage over Obama’s “lipstick on a pig” comment is phony or Obama’s outrage over McCain’s outrage is phony, but I think the outcry from Democrats misses the point…and the outcry from Republicans is intended to ensure that the rest of us do.
In Sarah Palin’s convention speech, she referred to herself as a “hockey mom” and devoted a lot of time to talking about her family and her PTA experience and such. That begged for a response—and McCain had to know it before Palin ever opened her mouth to speak. And maybe that was the plan, because the moment the Democrats (and other rational people) said, “Being a hockey mom doesn’t qualify you to be President”, crises of sexism rang from sea to shining sea. Never mind that NO ONE had suggested that being a hockey mom disqualified one from being qualified for public office. Sarah Palin identified herself as a hockey mom, loud and clear, and then the Republican spin-machine went straight to work repositioning “hockey mom” as a sexist term.
It’s brilliant, really. In her speech at the RNC, Sarah Palin artfully couched her greatest weaknesses in terms that wouldn’t allow anyone to point them out without raising the diversionary cry of “sexism”. Never mind that millions of the people now being accused of sexism were fervent supporters of Senator Hillary Clinton for the Presidency.
It wasn’t limited to “sexism”, either. Palin analogized herself to a pit bull and then when the moniker stuck, Republicans came out in force to protest the way Democrats were attacking her by, among other things, calling her a pit bull.
And it worked. Millions of Americans think those who don’t feel “hockey mom” is a credential worth boasting about in the Presidential race are sexists. Millions of Americans think it’s unprovoked meanness when someone points out that Sarah Palin compared herself to a pit bull. Suddenly, her weaknesses are her strengths, because anyone who points them out must be mean, sexist, or both…and therefore not worth listening to.
Talk about sexism. I can’t recall there ever before being a major-party political candidate at the national level whom we weren’t allowed to find fault with.
And it’s working. It’s such pure genius that I’d almost think Plain was qualified to be Vice-President, in a twisted, Machiavellian kind of way…if I thought for a minute that she was doing any more than reading what was put in front of her.
In Sarah Palin’s convention speech, she referred to herself as a “hockey mom” and devoted a lot of time to talking about her family and her PTA experience and such. That begged for a response—and McCain had to know it before Palin ever opened her mouth to speak. And maybe that was the plan, because the moment the Democrats (and other rational people) said, “Being a hockey mom doesn’t qualify you to be President”, crises of sexism rang from sea to shining sea. Never mind that NO ONE had suggested that being a hockey mom disqualified one from being qualified for public office. Sarah Palin identified herself as a hockey mom, loud and clear, and then the Republican spin-machine went straight to work repositioning “hockey mom” as a sexist term.
It’s brilliant, really. In her speech at the RNC, Sarah Palin artfully couched her greatest weaknesses in terms that wouldn’t allow anyone to point them out without raising the diversionary cry of “sexism”. Never mind that millions of the people now being accused of sexism were fervent supporters of Senator Hillary Clinton for the Presidency.
It wasn’t limited to “sexism”, either. Palin analogized herself to a pit bull and then when the moniker stuck, Republicans came out in force to protest the way Democrats were attacking her by, among other things, calling her a pit bull.
And it worked. Millions of Americans think those who don’t feel “hockey mom” is a credential worth boasting about in the Presidential race are sexists. Millions of Americans think it’s unprovoked meanness when someone points out that Sarah Palin compared herself to a pit bull. Suddenly, her weaknesses are her strengths, because anyone who points them out must be mean, sexist, or both…and therefore not worth listening to.
Talk about sexism. I can’t recall there ever before being a major-party political candidate at the national level whom we weren’t allowed to find fault with.
And it’s working. It’s such pure genius that I’d almost think Plain was qualified to be Vice-President, in a twisted, Machiavellian kind of way…if I thought for a minute that she was doing any more than reading what was put in front of her.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Universal Truth
I was struck today by a quote from someone on a blogging forum I frequent. A brief, brilliant, clear, illuminating statement in that, "Well...enough said" sort of way that doesn't roll around very often.
This is what he said: Palin believes a lot of stupid shit.
It was a standalone comment, too. No elaboration, no examples, as if that were all there really was to say.
The author's blog is primarily about atheism. I'm an old school Catholic. The author is a teenage male. I'm a middle-aged mother. In a dozen or a hundred ways our perspectives and foundations and world views differ...and yet, the single sentence is so resoundingly, clearly complete and accurate that both of us can look at it and said, "Yep, that's pretty much all there is to say."
This is what he said: Palin believes a lot of stupid shit.
It was a standalone comment, too. No elaboration, no examples, as if that were all there really was to say.
The author's blog is primarily about atheism. I'm an old school Catholic. The author is a teenage male. I'm a middle-aged mother. In a dozen or a hundred ways our perspectives and foundations and world views differ...and yet, the single sentence is so resoundingly, clearly complete and accurate that both of us can look at it and said, "Yep, that's pretty much all there is to say."
Out of the Mouths of Babes - Sarah Palin
As we were leaving a store this afternoon, my 12-year-old daughter pointed out a headline saying that Lindsey Lohan and her girlfriend were having a baby. Now that I have a 12-year-old, I know a lot more than I ever expected (or wanted) to about teenage celebrities, but when she talks, I listen and engage. She's an adolescent, and opportunities may be limited.
I mentioned that I'd heard Lohan had been blogging about Sarah Palin, and the tone sounded positive.
"Why am I not surprised?" my daughter asked.
That surprised ME. "I'm very surprised," I told her. You know, Sarah Palin is very conservative and religious..."
"But," my daughter cut in, in that well, DUH tone of voice, "she's a wack job.
Identity politics at work again?
I mentioned that I'd heard Lohan had been blogging about Sarah Palin, and the tone sounded positive.
"Why am I not surprised?" my daughter asked.
That surprised ME. "I'm very surprised," I told her. You know, Sarah Palin is very conservative and religious..."
"But," my daughter cut in, in that well, DUH tone of voice, "she's a wack job.
Identity politics at work again?
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Colorado Amendment Question 48 - What's the Point?
I have to admit that when I first heard about the proposed amendment to the Colorado Constitution that would redefine "person" to include human embryos from the moment of fertilization, I got a little excited. It wasn't for any of the reasons you might expect from a normal person, though--it was because I foresaw a HUGE legal glitch. You see, if the Colorado Constitution defined "person" in that way for purposes of Colorado law, there would have been a teeny, tiny problem: the state's murder statute would have been effectively rewritten to include first-trimester fetuses and would thus have violated the current interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Just like that, the statute could have been struck down and all murder could have been legal in Colorado.
I guess I wasn't the only one who thought of this, though, because the proposed amendment DOESN'T redefine "person" for purposes of all Colorado law: it only redefines the word as it's used in specific provisions of the Constitution.
Thus, no major legal snafu...just a whole lot of nothin'.
The provisions specified are, of course, those that relate to inalienable rights and such...but what to do? Life, for instance, is an inalienable right. And the Colorado Constitution may well be amended to extend that inalienable right to a fetus at the moment of conception. But then what? The current interpretation of the U.S. Constitution--the interpretation that's prevailed for decades--says that states can't limit the right to elective abortion in the first trimester. Thus, the state of Colorado can deem that unborn child a "person" and say it can't be deprived of life without due process of law, but what due process is available? The only due process permissible under the U.S. Constitution would be a hearing or other process to determine that the woman was, in fact, in the first trimester of her pregnancy. Once that was determined, the U.S. Constitution would prevent any further regulation of her access to an abortion.
Doesn't do that "person" a whole lot of good to have been renamed, does it?
Naturally, lawmakers and lobbyists alike know this. So what are they doing? What's the point of spending time and money and commanding the time and attention of Colorado voters as if this were a serious issue, when they all know that the practical effect of the amendment will be nonexistant?
I guess it looks good on a resume.
I guess I wasn't the only one who thought of this, though, because the proposed amendment DOESN'T redefine "person" for purposes of all Colorado law: it only redefines the word as it's used in specific provisions of the Constitution.
Thus, no major legal snafu...just a whole lot of nothin'.
The provisions specified are, of course, those that relate to inalienable rights and such...but what to do? Life, for instance, is an inalienable right. And the Colorado Constitution may well be amended to extend that inalienable right to a fetus at the moment of conception. But then what? The current interpretation of the U.S. Constitution--the interpretation that's prevailed for decades--says that states can't limit the right to elective abortion in the first trimester. Thus, the state of Colorado can deem that unborn child a "person" and say it can't be deprived of life without due process of law, but what due process is available? The only due process permissible under the U.S. Constitution would be a hearing or other process to determine that the woman was, in fact, in the first trimester of her pregnancy. Once that was determined, the U.S. Constitution would prevent any further regulation of her access to an abortion.
Doesn't do that "person" a whole lot of good to have been renamed, does it?
Naturally, lawmakers and lobbyists alike know this. So what are they doing? What's the point of spending time and money and commanding the time and attention of Colorado voters as if this were a serious issue, when they all know that the practical effect of the amendment will be nonexistant?
I guess it looks good on a resume.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Why Would White Supremacists Fear Obama?
Earlier this week, three white supremacists were arrested and, although they haven't been charged, officials appear to believe that they planned to attempt to assassinate Barack Obama. At a glance, the idea of white supremacists wanting to assassinate a black Presidential candidate makes a lot of sense; upon reflection, it makes it appear that they lack the courage of their convictions.
After all, don't white supremacists believe that whites are...well...superior? Isn't it, in their view, a natural superiority, granted by God or nature or some combination thereof?
But if they're so confident that whites are superior and blacks are inferior, then what do they have to fear? Even if a black man could win the Presidency, he wouldn't be up to the job in the way that our "superior" white Presidents have been, right? And wouldn't that just prove their point?
It seems to me that if white supremacists think a black man is enough of a threat that they want to assassinate him, they must fear that he'll prove them wrong.
After all, don't white supremacists believe that whites are...well...superior? Isn't it, in their view, a natural superiority, granted by God or nature or some combination thereof?
But if they're so confident that whites are superior and blacks are inferior, then what do they have to fear? Even if a black man could win the Presidency, he wouldn't be up to the job in the way that our "superior" white Presidents have been, right? And wouldn't that just prove their point?
It seems to me that if white supremacists think a black man is enough of a threat that they want to assassinate him, they must fear that he'll prove them wrong.
Who's Raising that "Perfect Child" Now, Sarah?
In the hours since John McCain announced that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin would be his running mate, there's been a cacaphony of pro and con discourse. Was Palin chosen for her credentials, experience, positions and talents, or was she chosen because she's a woman and McCain hopes to court voters who previously supported Senator Hillary Clinton? Palin is low on experience, but she has a reputation for pulling out all the stops, and just might restore some of McCain's lost maverick image. Perhaps more significantly, she's a good looking woman with the kind of life and history that makes other women nod and say "You go, girl!"
But through all the buzz--positive and negative--one thing has been troubling me: one thing that I haven't heard mentioned by anyone else.
Just this past spring, Palin gave birth to her fifth child, a child with Downs Syndrome. As a pro-life politician, Palin gained points and gathered accolades simply for having her child--after all, many Downs Syndrome babies are aborted. But what is she doing now?
One of the things that has always troubled me about a large sector of the pro-life movement is the idea many pro-life activists seem to have that it's only their business for as long as it takes to make sure that the baby is born alive. Sure, some people active in the movement work to provide support to those new mothers and make it possible for them to raise healthy children, but for many, the victory is achieved and the battle over when a woman safely passes into her second trimester and can no longer obtain an abortion on demand.
It's always seemed to me that if those people were really so "pro life", they'd be worried about the babies and the toddlers and the adolescents, too...not JUST the unborn.
I don't know enough about Sarah Palin to judge her sincerity one way or the other, but her actions right now are reminding me quite a lot of those people who want to bar the doors of the abortion clinic but then consider the child "not our problem" once it's actually born. She's been applauded and patted on the back by all those "pro life" and "pro family" organizations for giving birth to the child, and now she's...going off to run for Vice President. How, exactly, is it "pro family" for a woman with a special needs infant to hit the campaign trail vying for one of the most demanding jobs in the world? Maybe it's just me, but I've always thought that part of being pro family was putting the needs of your family ahead of your own ambitions.
But through all the buzz--positive and negative--one thing has been troubling me: one thing that I haven't heard mentioned by anyone else.
Just this past spring, Palin gave birth to her fifth child, a child with Downs Syndrome. As a pro-life politician, Palin gained points and gathered accolades simply for having her child--after all, many Downs Syndrome babies are aborted. But what is she doing now?
One of the things that has always troubled me about a large sector of the pro-life movement is the idea many pro-life activists seem to have that it's only their business for as long as it takes to make sure that the baby is born alive. Sure, some people active in the movement work to provide support to those new mothers and make it possible for them to raise healthy children, but for many, the victory is achieved and the battle over when a woman safely passes into her second trimester and can no longer obtain an abortion on demand.
It's always seemed to me that if those people were really so "pro life", they'd be worried about the babies and the toddlers and the adolescents, too...not JUST the unborn.
I don't know enough about Sarah Palin to judge her sincerity one way or the other, but her actions right now are reminding me quite a lot of those people who want to bar the doors of the abortion clinic but then consider the child "not our problem" once it's actually born. She's been applauded and patted on the back by all those "pro life" and "pro family" organizations for giving birth to the child, and now she's...going off to run for Vice President. How, exactly, is it "pro family" for a woman with a special needs infant to hit the campaign trail vying for one of the most demanding jobs in the world? Maybe it's just me, but I've always thought that part of being pro family was putting the needs of your family ahead of your own ambitions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
